The Gender-Neutral Language Controversy

by Michael D. Marlowe, 2001

(revised January 2005)

“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and he blessed them and he named them Man in the day when they were created.” (Genesis 5:1,2)

One of the most controversial features of several recent versions of the Bible has been the use of gender-neutral language. Many articles and at least three books have appeared dealing with this issue in the past seven years. (1) I can add little to what has already been said by scholars on both sides of the issue. In this article I will provide some background information and a brief history of the controversy for those who are not already familiar with the facts.

The Feminist Origin of Gender-Neutral Language

Gender-neutral language is a style of writing that adheres to certain rules that were first proposed by feminist language reformers in universities during the 1970’s, and which have been accepted as normative in many schools since about 1980. The rules prohibit various common usages which are deemed to be “sexist,” as for example the use of the word “man,” and the generic use of masculine pronouns, in referring to persons of unspecified gender. A number of new words were also recommended, as for example “chairperson,” “spokesperson,” etc., as substitutes for the “sexist” words in common use. Feminists hoped that by means of such reforms in the universities the language of the whole society might gradually be reformed, and that by means of such a reform in the language, the consciousness of people would be rendered more favorable to feminist ideas. (2)

There is some disagreement as to what to call this new style of writing. Its advocates have called it by various names and descriptions: “inclusive language,” “gender-inclusive language,” “gender generic language,” “non-sexist language,” etc. Some translators have even preferred to call it “gender accurate” language, because they claim that only the use of such language in a translation will accurately reflect the inclusive intent of the original. Conservatives have of course objected to the term “gender accurate.” They have also objected to the word “inclusive” as a description for the new style, because this implies that the generic “man” and “he” are not really inclusive. Most conservatives have preferred to call the new style “gender-neutral.” Some others have called it “inclusivist language,” which aptly expresses the intent of the language reformers without implying any agreement with their linguistic claims.

Feminism in the Seminaries

Feminist complaints about the English language were almost immediately echoed by those who controlled the older Protestant seminaries. In a 1975 editorial published in the journal of Princeton Theological Seminary, Theology Today, the editors advised their contributors:

“A literary consideration of increasing importance for us these days relates to the avoidance of exclusive in favor of inclusive sexist language. In the last several issues, we have been quietly transposing sex-specific language. We don't want to be legalistic about this, and quotations, biblical and otherwise, will mostly stand as originally written. But we think this is a literary revolution of major, even theological, importance. For our writers, this will mean not only careful attention to grammar but, in many instances, a new way of writing altogether. If we cannot make changes easily in a manuscript, it will either be returned for revision or we will allow the author to assume responsibility for the implied discrimination. We believe that Christian faith is more interested in persons than in restrictive traditions (cf. Mark 7:9). If some feel dehumanized because conventional language (even little pronouns) exclude them or offend their self-awareness, then we want to change our syntax and not expect them to change their identities.” (3)

During the late 1970’s the liberal mainline seminaries generally adopted these new rules of usage. The feminists in these seminaries were not satisfied, however, with the gender-neutral language as applied only to persons, and insisted upon gender-neutral language in reference to God also; and so during the 1980’s gender-neutral language in reference to God became normal and even prescribed by codes of speech. Today it is not permissible for students in many schools to use the pronoun “he” in reference to God, and even such usages as “God Godself” (instead of “God himself”) have gained currency in these places. The feminists have insisted upon the use of such language as a very important moral duty.

The Patriarchal Bible Problem

After this change in language was brought about in seminaries, the next effort was to promote its use in the churches at large, by means of denominational publications. But a great hindrance to this campaign was the fact that the Bible itself did not abide by their new rules.

The Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible often use generic masculine nouns (adam and anthropos, both meaning “man”) and generic masculine pronouns in a gender-inclusive sense, in reference to persons of unspecified gender. In the Epistles, believers in general are addressed as adelphoi, “brethren.” Such usages are not merely figments of “sexist” English translations; they are a normal feature of the original languages, just as they are normal in English and many other languages. In most cases the inclusive intent of the writer is obvious from the context, and when the intent is not inclusive, this is also obvious enough from the context. The interpreter must not proceed mechanically with the idea that every occurrence of adam and anthropos is to be understood in a gender-inclusive sense, because the Bible for the most part records the names and actions of men, uses male examples, assumes a male audience, and in general focuses on men and their concerns while leaving women in the background. This feature of the text is obviously related to the cultural situation and expectations of the original authors and recipients, and so any movement to disguise it in translation runs up against the academic qualms already being expressed by Bruce Metzger in 1976: “How far is it feasible to eradicate from an ancient text those features that belong to the patriarchal culture in which its narratives had their origin?” (4) To illustrate the extent of the problem we give now a few examples of how these “patriarchal” tendencies manifest themselves in the biblical text.

In Genesis 2:24, after Adam declares that Eve is “flesh of my flesh,” it is said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” It has been observed by commentators that among the Israelites for whom this text was written, it was really the woman who left her father and mother. She was brought into the extended family of her husband, and the new household was established on the property of the man’s family. Why then do we read that “a man shall leave his father and his mother,” instead of “a woman shall leave her father and her mother”? It is because this saying is describing the action from the man’s perspective.

In Genesis 3:23-24 we read that God sent Adam out of the garden of Eden, but the text says nothing about Eve being driven out. Obviously we must understand that both were exiled, but the writer sees fit to describe this event in terms of Adam’s exile.

In Genesis 4:17 we read “And Cain knew his wife.” But where did this woman come from? Evidently she was a daughter of Adam and Eve, but her birth goes unmentioned, and in the narrative her existence becomes important only in connection with the progeny of Cain. The genealogies of the Old Testament rarely mention wives or mothers. Often when a woman does appear in a narrative she is not named, but is referred to only as the wife of a certain man (e.g. Noah’s wife).

In Genesis 32:22 we read that Jacob “took his two wives, and his two handmaids, and his eleven children, and passed over the ford of the Jabbok.” The word translated “children” here is yeladim, which might be expected to include both sons and daughters (cf. the usage in Exodus 21:4); but Jacob at this point in the narrative has twelve children: eleven sons and one daughter. Dinah’s birth was mentioned in 30:21, and in chapter 34 we have the story of how her brothers killed all the men of Shechem to avenge the loss of her maidenhood, but here in 32:22 she is omitted from the number of Jacob’s children.

God is often described as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (e.g. Exodus 3:16) but what of Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel?

The tendency of the writers to address males in particular is seen in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). There we read, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” Likewise the sexual ordinances in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, though they pertain to both men and women, are all addressed to men. (Note the shift from second to third person in 18:23, “You shall not lie with ... neither shall any woman ...”). In Psalm 128, addressed to “everyone who fears the LORD,” it is said that “your wife shall be as a fruitful vine within your house.” Likewise, in Deuteronomy 21:10-13 (“when you go out to war ... and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her as your wife ...”) the persons directly addressed with the pronouns “you” and “your” cannot include women. In Deuteronomy 29 we read, “Moses summoned all Israel and said to them ... you are standing today all of you before the Lord your God ... your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp ... so that you may enter into the sworn covenant,” and we note that “all of you” in this context can only refer to all of the men in the assembly. See also Exodus 22:24, 32:2, Deuteronomy 3:19, Joshua 1:14, Nehemiah 4:14, Jeremiah 44:9, 44:25, and Malachi 2:14. This male-oriented language cannot be explained by saying that the text presupposes a setting in which only men were present, because in several places we are explicitly told that women were also present in the assemblies (Deuteronomy 29:11, Joshua 8:35, 2 Chronicles 20:13, Joel 2:16). In Jeremiah chapter 44 it is explictly stated that Jeremiah spoke “to the men and to the women” (verse 20), “to all the people, and to all the women” (verse 24), but he says, “thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, Ye and your wives have both spoken …” (verse 25). The instruction he gives here pertains mostly to the behavior of the women (who have been burning incense to the “Queen of Heaven”), but, as usual, the women are addressed only indirectly. The men are addressed directly because God holds them responsible for the behavior of their wives.

Much of the book of Proverbs is addressed to young men, with warnings against getting involved with prostitutes and adulteresses (e.g. 7:5), but there is no similar advice given directly to women. The famous description of the “excellent wife” in Proverbs 31 is cast in the third person.

In Deuteronomy 7 there is a good example of how the Hebrew text tends to encode patriarchal ideas: the chapter begins speaking of the need for the Israelites to drive out the Canaanites, and in verse 3 it says, “you shall not give your daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for your son, for he will turn your son away from following me, that they may serve other gods.” The masculine singular forms are used here because the focus is on the duty of the Jewish father, the religious practices of his son, and the bad influence of a heathen father-in-law. The girl (usually at about the age of sixteen) is “taken” from her father by her new husband’s father, on behalf of his son, and she is “given” to her new husband. Nothing is said regarding the daughter who is given to a Canaanite’s son, because it is taken for granted that she must worship her husband’s gods. The text focuses on what may happen to the son who takes a daughter of Canaan to be his wife, because this association with heathenism will weaken the son’s resolve to worship only the God of his fathers. Regarding this, it is especially notable that the text does not say that she (i.e. the Canaanite’s daughter) will turn the Jewish son away, but instead skips over the woman to focus on a man—“he will turn your son away.” (The heathen patriarch is meant. See the American Standard Version for the literal translation.) The heathen mother-in-law is not mentioned. The linguistic features of these sentences are not meaningless accidents of the Hebrew language, nor are they constrained by any grammatical requirements of the language; they are reflections of the patriarchal assumptions of the author, which are in several ways controlling the choice of words in this text.

None of this changes when we come to the New Testament.

In Luke 18:29 we read a promise of Jesus, “there is no one who has left house or wife ... for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive many times more.” He says “wife,” not “husband or wife.”

In Acts 21:4-5 it is said that “the disciples” (μαθηται) at Tyre accompanied Paul “with wives and children.”/li>

In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul addresses the whole congregation with second-person plural forms which cannot be inclusive of women: “if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you” (5:2). In 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 he writes, “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned—and if a virgin marries she has not sinned.” In 1 Corinthians 14:31 he says, “You can all prophesy one by one,” but in verse 34 he says “the women should keep silent.” In such places it becomes obvious that the authors of the New Testament are addressing their words primarily to men.

Typically men are addressed in the second person while women are referred to in the third person. In Luke 15, Jesus introduces one parable in verse 4 with the words, “What man of you, having a hundred sheep” (second person plural), and the next parable in verse 8, “what woman, having ten silver coins” (third person).

Sometimes a serious misunderstanding will come from a failure to recognize that the text presupposes a male audience. For instance, in Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus’ warning against frivolous divorce is framed entirely from the standpoint of the man — “anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery.” Here the hapless wife, who is innocent of any wrongdoing, is said to be adulterated by any remarriage, after having been wrongly divorced. In ancient times a woman had to remarry if she was to have any security, and so it might seem that a woman who had been divorced is put in an impossible moral position by the saying. But this hyperbolic saying is aimed entirely against the man who unjustly divorces his wife, and there is no intention of stigmatizing innocent women here. The idea that the husband “makes her commit adultery” is merely an ironic way of saying that God looks upon the divorce as illegitimate. Jesus did not intend for anyone to draw from this saying any rule for the divorced woman, because the saying was not meant to be read from the standpoint of the woman. The woman is not even considered to be a morally responsible agent.

When people are numbered in the Bible, it is the men who are numbered. In Numbers 1:2 the “sum of all the congregation” is found by counting “every male.” Likewise in Ezra chap. 2 and Nehemiah chap. 7, the number of the “whole congregation” (Ezra 2:64, Nehemiah 7:66) is “the number of the men [enashim, here denoting common men or laymen] of the people of Israel” (Ezra 2:2, Nehemiah 7:7) plus the number of priests, levites, and other temple workers. In Matthew 14:21 we are told that “those who had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children,” and likewise Matthew 15:38 mentions “four thousand men, beside women and children.” In Acts 4:4 it says “many of those who heard the word believed, and the number of the men (arithmos ton andron) was about five thousand.” In Revelation 14:4 we read that the 144,000 redeemed from tribulation “have not defiled themselves with women.”

In various places the Bible contains expressions which are quite unacceptable in the modern climate of political correctness. In 2 Timothy 3:6 Paul refers to false teachers who prey upon γυναικαρια “silly women,” (5) and in 1 Timothy 4:7 he warns Timothy to have nothing to do with the worthless fables that are γραωδεις, “typical of old women.” In Isaiah 19:16 the prophet says “the Egyptians will become like women (כנשים) and tremble with fear” (similarly Jeremiah 50:37, 51:30, and Nahum 3:13). In 1 Corinthians 16:13 Paul urges the Corinthians to stand firm and ανδριζεσθε “act like men.” This is how a man speaks to men.

In short, the Bible is by no means gender-neutral. It presents from beginning to end a thoroughly “androcentric” perspective, and it often leaves it to the reader to decide what application to women or what inclusion of women is implied.

In pointing these things out, I am aware of the fact that I am breaking an unwritten law of modern apologetics. The tendency today among conservative Christian writers is to deny that the Bible is primarily addressed to men. Although it is undeniably true, evidently it is thought to be too embarrassing or too scandalous to be talked about, or even admitted. Frankly, it seems to me that there has been more honesty on this point among liberal scholars than among conservatives, because liberal scholars are not so worried about what people will think of the Bible because of it—but the fact is, the biblical authors are completely oblivious to anything resembling the modern rules of polite “inclusivity” in discourse. One feminist critic in pointing to this feature of the biblical text has said that it means the female reader must read much of the Bible as if she were a man, which is quite true. (6)

If we begin looking for places where women are directly addressed in the Bible, we quickly discover that in such cases the message is even more offensive to the modern egalitarian mindset than anything which has been noted above. The women are addressed only to remind them that they are not equal:

Obviously such passages present serious problems for those who wish to tone down the patriarchalism of the Bible, and many feminists have concluded that there is not much to be gained by making the language of such a pervasively patriarchal book “inclusive.” According to one feminist critic this may even be a bad idea. After highlighting some examples of “patriarchal, misogynist, and androcentric” features which are only superficially camouflaged by recent gender-neutral Bible versions, she concludes:

By changing the language of patriarchy we run the danger of merely disguising, rather than eliminating, the deeply ingrained patterns which we struggle against. We thus risk embedding misogynist discourse even more deeply into our metaphoric constructions, while at the same time removing the signals which could alert us to its presence ... changing the language does not necessarily remove the bias or the sexism that remains embedded in the thought patterns, images and metaphors which, with language, combine to form a given text. Indeed, removing the language which signals sexist bias may result in obscuring that bias beyond conscious recognition, while allowing it to continue to quietly permeate our cultural subconscious ... The masculine bias has not been removed; it has simply been rendered more subtle and therefore more dangerous, because more difficult to discern and expose ... When symbol, image and metaphor are so deeply embedded in a text and culture as is the case with the Bible, perhaps it is time to recognize that we cannot easily eliminate the gendered biases which so often define the very essence of its thought and to set our energies rather to exposing those biases. Language is only a symptom of a more deeply ingrained problem; in changing the language alone, therefore, we run the risk of merely disguising the biases which are inherent in the text and its cultural stance. Unrecognized, and unrecognizable, those biases become even more insidious, even more powerful. This is particularly dangerous with a text such as the Bible which has played a foundational role in the formation of our own culture to the extent that its influence is so subtle and pervasive that it goes unrecognized in a culture that believes itself sophisticated and free of such influence. Rather than empowering gender bias by rendering it implicit, perhaps it is better to expose its hidden power, retaining the language which signals its presence and eliminating its force by bringing it into the light of critical and analytical discourse. (7)

Nevertheless, most religious feminists who have taken an interest in the Bible have felt that something should be done to suppress its patriarchal aspects. But what was to be done?

The remedy proposed was twofold: (1) a revision of the Bible, in which the new “dynamic equivalence” method of translating would be employed so as to conform the text to the same stylistic guidelines which had lately been imposed on the seminary, and to otherwise obscure the “patriarchalism” of the Bible by the adoption of feminist interpretations; and (2) an elimination of the intractable “problem” passages (e.g. Ephesians 5:22-24) by means of a revised lectionary (schedule of readings) which was to omit all passages in which the subordination of women is so plainly taught that it could not be obscured by false interpretations. By this means the Bible might be exhibited as an example of political correctness to all who heard it read in the churches.

The earliest example of such an effort was the Inclusive Language Lectionary published by the National Council of Churches in 1983. This lectionary presented gender-neutral adaptations of Scripture for the readings prescribed in the Common Lectionary (1983, revised 1992), which excluded 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and 1 Peter 3:1-6. The adaptations were thoroughgoing, and included gender-neutral language in reference to God. Soon after this, complete versions of the Bible which featured a moderate use of gender-neutral language began to appear. In 1985 the New Jerusalem Bible, a Roman Catholic version, became the first such version. But the first version to use gender-neutral language in a really thorough and systematic way was the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which appeared in 1990. This version was created under a mandate from the copyright holder, the National Council of Churches, to eliminate “sexist” language. It did not however substitute gender-neutral language in reference to God, and it did not incorporate many of the misinterpretations proposed by feminists, and so it did not satisfy many liberals.

In 1991 a version of the New Testament much more to their liking appeared: the Contemporary English Version, published by the American Bible Society (the complete Bible appeared in 1995). This version did not use gender-neutral language for God, but it did incorporate many feminist interpretations that went beyond the mere use of gender-neutral language. In Genesis 2:18, Eve is called not a “helper” but a “partner” of Adam; in 1 Peter 3:1, Colossians 3:18 and Ephesians 5:22 women are advised to “put their husbands first” rather than “submit” to them; in 1 Corinthians 11:10 the CEV says a woman should wear a head covering not merely as a “sign of authority” (usually interpreted to mean her husband’s authority) but “as a sign of her authority.” In 1 Timothy 3:3 and 3:12 gender-neutered officers of the church are required to be “faithful in marriage” rather than “the husband of one wife.”

Going still further, in 1994 a group of liberal Roman Catholics published the Inclusive New Testament, in which full advantage was taken of the principle of “dynamic equivalence.” Typical of this version is the following rendering of Colossians 3:18-19.

“You who are in committed relationships, be submissive to each other. This is your duty in Christ Jesus. Partners joined by God, love each other. Avoid any bitterness between you.”

In 1995, liberal Protestants published a similar version in the New Testament and Psalms, An Inclusive Version. Both of these versions featured gender-neutral language for God along with many other politically correct alterations designed to combat “racism,” “homophobia,” “ageism,” “anti-semitism,” etc. The liberties taken with the text of Scripture in these versions were however so flagrant that they were met with ridicule in the popular press. For the time being at least, the most reputable liberal scholars have not ventured to publicly defend them as legitimate translations, although it remains to be seen how much headway such avant garde versions will make in the next generation.

“Evangelical” Feminism?

None of the versions mentioned above were produced by organizations which professed to be evangelical, and they were intended for an audience which did not consider itself to be evangelical. Their use has been limited to the shrinking “mainline” churches controlled by liberals. But by 1990 feminism had made some inroads into evangelical circles also, and its influence was evident in several seminaries and Bible agencies which were considered to be evangelical. (8) Academics in these seminaries and agencies were involved in the production of five gender-neutral versions that were published between 1986 and 1996, and which were intended for the evangelical market. The first of these, the New Century Version, was a version intended for young children. It was brought out by a small publisher and attracted little notice. Next was God’s Word, another little-known version that made a very cautious use of gender-neutral language. The third was the New International Reader’s Version (NIrV), and the fourth version was The New International Version Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI). These last two were revisions of the popular New International Version (NIV). The NIrV was a simplification of the NIV intended for children, and its gender-neutral renderings were not noticed until later. The NIVI, which very much resembled the NRSV, was first published in England, where the people who consider themselves to be evangelical are much more liberal than in America, and for a year or two it went unnoticed in America. Then in 1996 the New Living Translation (NLT), which also made consistent use of gender-neutral language, appeared on the market with much fanfare; but, like the NIrV, this version made such heavy use of the “dynamic equivalence” method that the gender-neutral language was scarcely to be noticed in the general looseness of translation.

In 1997 the issue of gender-neutral “dynamic equivalence” came dramatically to the forefront after World magazine (9) revealed that the International Bible Society (IBS), which owns the copyright of the NIV and had apparently come under the influence of “evangelical feminists,” (10) was planning to publish its little-known NIVI soon in America, as a new edition of the NIV. Because the NIV was widely used as a trustworthy version in evangelical circles, a great uproar ensued, in which several conservative Christian organizations brought pressure against the IBS to abandon these plans. In May of 1997 James Dobson, the influential head of the Focus on the Family ministry, convened several prominent evangelical leaders for a special meeting on the issue at Colorado Springs. The participants issued a declaration of recommended guidelines which would discourage the artificial use of gender-neutral language in Bible translations. The IBS reluctantly yielded to this pressure, and at that time promised that it would not publish this new edition of the New International Version in America. It also issued a revision (1998) of its NIrV in which the gender-neutral language was replaced with more accurate renderings. The controversy was not settled by this however, because various scholars came forward with arguments for gender-neutral language, provoking counter-arguments, and then the IBS announced that it would publish its gender-neutral revision of the NIV, under another name. (11) Advance review copies of this revision, under the name Today’s New International Version, were distributed in January 2002. The reaction to it has been overwhelmingly negative.

The NIV “inclusive language” controversy has widened into criticism and defense of the “dynamic equivalence” method which had made such an objectionable revision possible in the first place. Many evangelicals who had been using the NIV began to doubt the trustworthiness of the version in its original form.

Although the liberal organizations that sponsored the earlier gender-neutral versions plainly avowed their ideological motives for such revisions, advocates of the revised NIV (writing for a conservative audience) produced some literature (12) that defended some of the changes on scholarly or linguistic grounds alone. The word anthropoi was mentioned as a word in the Greek text which is sometimes quite properly translated “people.” Examples were given where a plural “they” put in place of the generic “he” does not appear to affect the meaning at all, and the change was defended on the ground that the gender-inclusive meaning of the sentence is better conveyed by such a “dynamically equivalent” rendering. But critics (13) drew attention to places where the systematic substitution of plurals did significantly interfere with the sense. For example, in Psalm 1, the one man whose delight is in the law of the Lord is set in opposition to the many ungodly ones around him. But when the man is made to disappear into a group of genderless people, then a part of the meaning of this passage is lost. It was also noticed that the Messianic interpretations of some Old Testament passages were eliminated in the pursuit of genderless language, as in Psalm 8:4, where the phrase “son of man” becomes “human beings” (compare to Hebrews 2:6).

Another debated point was the extent to which the gender-neutral style adopted in the new versions could be justified on the basis of common English usage. Some claimed that the generic use of “man” and “he” are no longer commonly used or understood, and that a translation which aims to be understood must avoid these usages. In support of this idea they referred to the gender-neutral style of textbooks used in schools, (14) and of some television and newspaper journalism, as representative of the people at large, and as proof that the gender-neutral style had become normal and standard usage outside of the academic circles where it originated. Critics replied that the politically correct language of school textbooks and journalism are far from being representative of established English usage, or of English as it is commonly spoken. (15)

It should be noted that not everyone who has advocated the use of gender-neutral versions in the evangelical sub-culture has done this with some hidden feminist agenda in mind. Some evangelicals, such as D.A. Carson, have advocated this change in Bible versions apparently because they feel a great awkwardness when linguistic customs of modern and polite society are not observed, especially in mixed company. Their desire to make the Bible speak politely is nothing new. As early as 1833 Noah Webster (the famous American lexicographer) revised the King James Version so as to eliminate many words and phrases that he deemed “offensive, especially to females.” There has always been a certain amount of uneasiness about expressions in the Bible which were thought to be offensive to women, and ever since the days of Webster there has been a constantly growing concern about the feelings and opinions of women in the churches. So this new trend toward gender-neutralism may be seen in this light. Yet it should also be noted that in former times this kind of condescending editorial work did not try to conceal its nature under specious arguments about the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words. Some apologists for gender-neutral Bible versions have even argued that the Greek word aner, which clearly means “adult male,” is a gender-neutral word. Arguments like this could not have arisen among scholars apart from a desire to provide ad hoc justifications for gender-neutral renderings. (16)

More important in the long run were the arguments concerning the legitimacy of “dynamic equivalence” as a method of translating. This method, which was employed to a moderate degree in the original NIV, had for a long time been criticized by the more conservative evangelicals, who warned of its dangers. As the NIV controversy unfolded, these critics were in a strong position to argue that the NIV from the beginning embodied dangerous tendencies, and that it is time for evangelicals to turn away from it.

Conclusion

Gender-neutral Bible versions originated as an attempt by feminists to transform both the language and the beliefs of Christians. They were welcomed in liberal circles, but were met with strong resistance among evangelicals. The creators and defenders of these versions have suffered a loss of reputation among evangelicals, and publishers are not likely to market them successfully among evangelicals in the near future.

For further study of this issue, see the books listed in the bibliography and the links in the Web Directory.

2. The importance of language reform to the feminist cause is indicated by the fact that an article on the subject appeared as the first article in the inaugural issue of the influential feminist magazine Ms.: Kate Miller and Casey Swift, “De-Sexing the English Language,” Ms. 1 (Spring 1972), p. 7. This feminist agitation for language reform had an immediate affect on American schoolbook publishers. See for example the stylesheet Guidelines for Equal Treatment of the Sexes in McGraw-Hill Book Company Publications (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974); and the more elaborate—and more explicitly ideological—publication of the Macmillan Book Company: Nancy Roberts, ed., Guidelines for Creating Positive Sexual and Racial Images in Educational Materials (New York: Macmillan Co., 1975). Since that time the preoccupation with language reform has spawned a large number of books, articles, and style guides. One widely used handbook of gender-neutral writing for academic writers is Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing by Marilyn Schwartz and the Task Force on Bias-free Language of the Association of American University Presses (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1995). In a review of this book, Denis Dutton notices the implications of its recommendations for translators:

Some of the advice ... is decidedly disturbing. Section 1.58, on translations, begins, “Translators must exercise careful judgment in rendering a text in English.” Quite so, but the “careful judgments” turn out to be about more than simply precision: translators “need to consider the readership and purpose of the translation—whether it be simply to render the ideas or also to reflect stylistic or cultural nuances—before determining whether gender-biased characteristics of the original warrant replication in English.” In other words, translators should consider expurgating gender bias from foreign writings where it is “unwarranted” to replicate them in English and distress readers with unhelpful and unnecessary stylistic or cultural nuances. It should not surprise anyone that what begins with overweening concern that language should never offend ends in a justification of expurgation. The Guidelines go on to say, “Translators should avoid recasting gender-neutral into sexist language, as in some biblical language.” While no one would argue with that, the Bias Persons glaringly omit the converse recommendation that gender-biased foreign-language texts should be translated so that readers can see the gender bias of the original. So does the path from courtesy take us, however deviously, to censorship. (Denis Dutton, “What Are Editors For?” Philosophy and Literature 20/2 [October 1996], archived by WebCite® at URL http://www.webcitation.org/5y2zKgIzY)

The use of such oppressive “politically correct” style guides is now common even among reputedly evangelical publishers. For example, the relevant section from the InterVarsity Press Style Guide (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001) may be seen here.

4. Bruce Metzger, “Trials of the Translator,” Theology Today 33/1 (April 1976), pp. 98-99. Metzger also mentions that “such problems … are currenty being considered by the Revised Standard Version Bible Committee.”

5.γυναικαριον is the diminutive of γυνη “woman,” and like many diminutives it expresses contempt.

6. Susan Durber, “The Female Reader of the Parables of the Lost,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 45 (1992), pp. 59-78. For some unusually frank comments on this subject by a conservative see Steven Schlissel, “Hopelessly Patriarchal,” in Chalcedon Report, February 1998. I also note that Grant Osborne, who may be described as a moderately conservative scholar, has acknowledged the fact that “men are being addressed in the ancient setting,” hence the male-oriented language (“Do Inclusive-Language Bibles Distort Scripture?” Christianity Today, October 27, 1997, p. 35). Strangely, Osborne makes this the basis of an argument for gender-neutral language in modern translations, because “men and women would be addressed in the modern setting” (emphasis added). Poythress and Grudem rightly respond to this argument by saying “if the Bible were mainly addressed to men, then we should translate it accurately in order to indicate this,” but they wrongly dispute the fact that the Bible is largely addressed to men when they say, “the New Testament letters were intended to be read out loud in the churches ... and these churches included both men and women in the assembly. How can anyone say that these letters were addressed mainly to men?” (Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, p. 179.) The mere fact that women were present in the meetings to hear the epistles being read aloud has little importance. It was proper for a writer to focus upon men, just as it was customary in ancient oratory. In any case, the male-oriented discourse of the epistles speaks for itself.

8. The June 16, 1997 issue of Christianity Today reported that Eugene Rubingh, who until 1999 was the IBS vice president for translations, says “publishers Zondervan and Hodder & Stoughton first suggested a more inclusive text to the CBT [the IBS Committee on Bible Translation] because they knew of seminary professors dropping the NIV in favor of the New Revised Standard Version.” In particular, Bethel Theological Seminary and Denver Seminary appear to have become seedbeds of feminism in the evangelical churches.

10. For a history of the growing influence of feminism in American churches, see The Feminist Gospel: the Movement to Unite Feminism with the Church, by Mary A. Kassian (Crossway Books, 1992). The facts are truly disturbing and raise serious doubts about the “evangelical” feminists. For a book written from the “evangelical feminist” point of view, see Nancy A. Hardesty’s Inclusive Language in the Church (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1987). Hardesty has now drifted into radical feminism, and is no longer called evangelical. For introductions to mainline church feminism, see Alice L. Laffey, An Introduction to the Old Testament: A Feminist Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); Letty M Russell, ed., Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985); Luise Schotroff, Silvia Schroer and Marie-Theres Wacker, Feminist Interpretation: The Bible in Women’s Perspective Trans. Martin and Barbara Rumscheidt. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998).

11.WORLD (6/5/99, p.16) obtained a copy of a letter by Eugene Rubingh, IBS vice president for translations, written on March 19, 1999, which stated, “I, the CBT and practically everyone involved, thoroughly support gender-accurate language. The matter is one of timing, of finding the appropriate hour to move ahead.”

12. The most important “evangelical” defenses of gender-neutral versions are D. A. Carson’s The Inclusive-Language Debate: a Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998) and Mark L. Strauss’s Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998). Of these two books, Strauss (Associate Professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary San Diego) gives the more detailed treatment.

13. The arguments are collected by Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem in their book, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Words (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000). Poythress and Grudem have been prominent in the evangelical opposition to gender-neutral language.

14. The official website of the TNIV declared, “Even school and college textbooks have changed over the years, as ‘men’ rarely refers to both men and women today.” http://www.tniv.info/qanda.php, accessed 5 Jan 2005.

15. The “bias and sensitivity review” editors employed by educational publishers had already banned such words as “man-made,” “middleman,” and “mailman” by 1975, and in more recent years they have gone to ridiculous extremes in their attempts to comply with the demands of feminist organizations. For details see Diane Ravitch, The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (New York: Random House, 2003). In an appendix Ravitch gives an extensive “Glossary of Banned Words, Usages, Stereotypes, and Topics” in which guidelines given in a 1975 document used at Holt, Rinehart, and Winston forbade words compounded with “man.”

16. D.A. Carson, after writing his book on the subject, in which he insulted other scholars and presented some rather evasive and disingenuous arguments about the meaning of Greek words, finally admitted that his main reason for defending the gender-neutral Bible versions was his desire to use an English text that would not offend secular people in academic settings. In his article “The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation—and Other Limits, Too” published in The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God’s Word to the World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), he responded to criticism of his 1998 book by saying quite frankly, “I have been doing university missions for thirty years, and in such quarters inclusive language dominates. Not to use it is offensive” (emphasis mine). If candid explanations like this were given at the outset of the controversy, there would have been less room for suspicions about feminist influences. The real point of disagreement between evangelicals is the question of whether it is legitimate or not for a translator to accommodate the text to modern attitudes by removing something that non-Christians find “offensive.” But evidently Dr. Carson did not have enough confidence in the rightness of his position to speak plainly about this at first.